GPT-5.4 vs Grok 4 for Math

What Math demands: precise multi-step reasoning, error-free symbolic manipulation, adherence to output formats (LaTeX/JSON), reliable numerical strategy and tradeoff reasoning, access to long context for extended derivations, and correct tool selection when calling calculators or symbolic engines. The payload includes a primary external benchmark entry (MATH Level 5) but both models lack scores for it in the data, so we cannot use it to decide. We therefore treat external SWE-bench Verified and AIME 2025 scores (when present) as supplementary domain evidence — these are attributed to Epoch AI. Internally, the most relevant test signals for Math are strategic analysis (nuanced numeric tradeoffs) and structured output (schema/format fidelity). In our testing GPT-5.4 scores 5/5 on both strategic analysis and structured output (the latter vs Grok 4's 4/5), indicating stronger end-to-end stepwise solutions and format compliance. Other supporting metrics: tool calling (4/5 both) matters for calculator/symbolic tool workflows and is tied; long context (5/5 both) supports long derivations equally; faithfulness (5/5 both) reduces hallucination risk. Where available, external results bolster the picture: GPT-5.4 scores 76.9% on SWE-bench Verified and 95.3% on AIME 2025 (Epoch AI), signals that map to coding/math and competition math strength respectively. Because the canonical MATH Level 5 score is missing for both models, our verdict relies on these internal and supplementary external indicators.

1. Competitive olympiad-style problems (AIME/advanced contest): GPT-5.4 is stronger — it registers 95.3% on AIME 2025 (Epoch AI) in the payload and scores 5/5 on strategic analysis in our tests, so expect better tradeoff reasoning and solution strategies. 2) Structured solutions for publishing or automated grading: GPT-5.4 scores 5/5 on structured output vs Grok 4's 4/5 in our tests, so GPT-5.4 will more reliably produce correct LaTeX, JSON answer schemas, or step-tagged proofs. 3) Long derivations or multi-part problem sets: both models tie at 5/5 for long context and 4/5 for tool calling, so either handles long contexts and tool workflows; choose GPT-5.4 when you also need stricter format fidelity. 4) Problem classification and routing: Grok 4 wins classification 4/5 vs GPT-5.4's 3/5 in our tests — use Grok 4 to triage problem types (algebra vs geometry vs combinatorics) before dispatching to a solver. 5) Code-based math or verified coding fixes: GPT-5.4 has a supplementary 76.9% on SWE-bench Verified (Epoch AI) in the payload, suggesting stronger performance on real GitHub issue resolution that involves math and code; Grok 4 has no SWE-bench entry in the data. 6) Safety-sensitive or instruction-restricted math (e.g., constrained content): GPT-5.4 scores 5/5 on safety calibration vs Grok 4's 2/5, reducing risk of unsafe or disallowed outputs in constrained settings.

For Math, choose GPT-5.4 if you need rigorous step-by-step solutions, high format fidelity (LaTeX/JSON), competition-level problem solving, or safer, more conservative outputs — GPT-5.4 scores 5/5 vs Grok 4's 4/5 on structured output and holds higher creative problem solving and safety scores in our tests. Choose Grok 4 if your primary need is fast problem classification and routing (classification 4/5 vs GPT-5.4's 3/5) or if you prefer a model that ties on strategic analysis and long context while you rely on external pipelines for final solution formatting.